People are asking a number of questions about UK defence policy, including its priorities, the amount of funding and if the approach is right for current and future needs. Some of the questions asked include:-

Has defence spending been affected by the EU “White Elephant”virus, e.g. like huge nuclear power stations and HS2?

Why were 2 huge carriers built at a cost of £6.2bn built when there aren’t enough patrol boats for the UK coast?

Why are troop numbers being reduced when more are urgently needed?

Why is so much being spent on huge new nuclear submarines, which are not used?

Is the procurement of expensive equipment being used to buy votes in elections? – and at the expense of defence capability?

The defence budget currently amounts to £45bn. I believe it cold be spent in a more effective manner. Let us start by looking at current trends and recent events.

Recent events:

Afghanistan, Iraq: High altitude precision bombing – no aerial combat

Troops on the ground – insufficient to win the peace, relying on US troops, who are not natural country builders

Mediterranean: Massive influx of illegal people across the sea into Europe– hopeless response

It sounds very impressive, but is still a defence cut in real terms. Has our cutting back militarily been a factor behind the Russian annexation of Crimea? – or the refugee influx? What is more, our defence spending duplicates areas where the American military has similar resources – and vastly more than we have or are planning to order.

Instead, I am proposing a complementary defence spending approach rather than duplicating the Americans. This would also help developing countries save on their defence spending?

Simpler alternatives – increasing capability

Nuclear deterrent: switch to 4 mini submarines, with 2 missiles each, regular 8 hour shifts into North Sea, ability to stay at sea for 4 weeks, operating deep enough not to be spotted from the air. Aim to construct these for £250m to £500m each, saving £29bn in procurement spending

Develop an increased ground launched missile capability

Develop air launched cruise missiles as well. These would cost around £1.5m each, with a speed of 550 mph and a range of 1550 miles

Improve ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) capability

Total saving with this revised missile programme would be around £25bn

Order no more F35s, saving £13.8bn

Buy Hawk planes (lightweight fighter) carry up to 3000kg (6600lb), speed 638 mph, range 383 mi (617 km), see if a short take off version can be built – for aircraft carriers, £18 million each, buy 300 Hawks, approximate cost £6bn

Buy an additional 50 Wildcat helicopters at a total cost of £1.4bn

Buy simplified aircraft carriers, 10 or more. Adopt a creative approach in the specification and leave off the bells and whistles. The vessels should be fast and able to carry 20 aircraft. Ideally, these should cost no more that £250m a piece. Start with answer: flight deck length and width to withstand combat aircraft landing, room for 20 aircraft, crew, up to 200 personnel – troops and/or civilians, lightweight. Blue sky thinking: 4 to 6 hydrofoils, holding up a lattice network of beams, supporting a landing deck and 1 deck for aircraft, speeds up to 70mph (110 km/h), with defensive armaments, and redundancy built in in case of attack. Usual catapult and also arresting wires. There are many other ideas which could be explored here.

Troops: We currently have 80,000 plus 35,000 reservists. We should be aiming for 200,000 troops plus reservists.

Military spending among developing countries is high, e.g. Africa $40bn (Approx £35bn) a year. These valuable funds could be better used for schools, health, transport and the environment. Perhaps the UK could use the increase in aircraft and troops to offer – as a part of overseas aid – help with defence, so that developing country funds can be redirected to more useful ways in building their economies?

The EU model of wasting funds on useless projects is not a good role model for UK or even European defence. With Brexit, we have an opportunity to liberate the UK from the EU way of thinking and develop a more effective defence capability.

The aim of this article is to highlight possible new ways to approach defence spending which are useful and have an immediate use in the wider world. Copying what the Americans can do with a bigger budget has left huge gaps in our defence capability. The UK’s expertise of winning the war and the peace has been compromised. A more practical approach to defence spending and simpler engineering, can make an improvement both to our own defence and also to our capacity to offer humanitarian assistance.

Is there a way the UK can negotiate the EU request for UK funds to help liberate Europe from the EU and boost economic growth? I believe so. What if the UK were to pay money but only in return for the restoration of democracy, self-government and prosperity in Europe?

The UK voted to leave the EU, and to end its net contribution to the budget, which hasn’t been signed off by auditors for over 15 years. Since joining the EU, the UK has contributed £130bn net to the EU and had a cumulative £400bn trade deficit with EU countries. The EU has spending plans for countries, since the people in these other countries avoid paying the taxes they are supposed to pay and then vote for corrupt and/or incompetent politicians who waste their money. These countries could easily afford the money if they had better habits – and also if there was no €uro, with exchange rates reflecting the competitiveness of each economy and competence of each country’s politicians.

The areas the EU feels the UK owes them money

EU infrastructure projects, road and rail, in other countries

Other investment projects after Brexit, for less developed countries

Pensions for UK Eurocrats

Liabilities for loans that fail with other countries

Relocation costs of EU agencies to other EU countries

Firstly, adopting a fast track approach to Brexit could help, i.e. to get 70% of what the UK wants in 3 months:

During Brexit negotiations, switch to EFTA/Single Market from current EU/Single Market

Allowing the UK to freely negotiate trade deals with any country around the world

UK having a seat on the WTO and other world organisations and voting

Having a veto of any new regulations, for implementing in the UK

Amend and repeal any EU and EEA regulations that are unnecessary for the UK

Single Market regulations only affect the 9% of the economy that exports to the EU

Controlling agriculture, fisheries, home affairs and justice

No ECJ, with rulings and arbitration through the EFTA Court

No EAW (European Arrest Warrant)

Any UK aid goes to other EU countries directly, on a matched funds basis with the recipient country, i.e. no matching funds, no project

New Eastern European immigrants get a 1 working year visa, points system for staying longer

Other EU countries have free movement, unless unemployment over 7%, then only have a 1 year working visa, points system for staying longer

Similarity between EFTA and EU Free Trade Agreements

(For more information on this point, compare the EFTA FTAs with those negotiated by the EU.)

People may be wandering why the EU is asking for any money at all. After all, the UK has helped Europe over the last more than 200 years, saving it from the actions of French and German politicians taking away the self-government of other European countries in the areas of: political decision making, foreign policy, taxation levels, regulations, judiciary control, media control, currency control, movement of people across borders, control of military in other countries. So what has changed after each conflict? Have German – and to some extent – French politicians finally learnt to respect the self-government of other European countries? – freedoms which Britain played a lead role in restoring, paying dearly both in lives lost and also financially. And now they want the UK to pay for upgrading to a self-governing democracy? Pay for the incompetence and corruption in other countries? Pay funds to help with vote buying in corrupt countries, and give an electoral advantage to politicians in power and so distort electoral outcomes? Have they no conscience or moral compass? Clearly not. Appeasement doesn’t work.

The EU is a symptom. The problems are caused by the failure of political systems in the various countries and also the censoring media that covers up what is really happening, and side effects of policies. How about offering to pay the EU some money if they upgrade their political systems?

€5bn – each country which has the €uro to have binding referendums on switching to original currency, implemented within 3 months of a referendum result, starting with the Deutsche Mark being the currency for other countries to peg their currencies to, starting with +/- 3% band, for first 3 months, +/- 6%, next 3 months, +/- 10% next 3 months, +/- 15% next 3 months, +/- 22% next 3 months, +/- 30% next 3 months, then float freely. Worth remembering, that the currencies are indicators of how well a country is run.

€5bn – the Single Market/EEA (European Economic Area), now becomes only an area for the free movement of goods, services and capital. The articles covering free movement, social policy and environment are repealed/deleted. These become each countries choice and also bilateral

€5bn – each EU country has a new law allowing petition/referendum for any treaty, agreement or any international laws, to do with other countries, e.g. trade in goods, services, capital and movement of people. Example 2% sign petition, binding referendum held within 2 months of petition, implemented within 3 months of result

€5bn – East Germany has a referendum to choose to become an independent sovereign nation, with own currency. Bavaria has a referendum to become an independent sovereign nation, with own currency, e.g. Bavarian Mark. Implemented within 3 months of referendum result.

€5bn – if all the above are done

Paid over 5 years. From a current £9bn net EU contribution per year.

What would the benefits of this expenditure be?

Re-implementing national currencies will remove the price distortion by having an overvalued or undervalued exchange rate, thus removing the misallocation of resources, and allowing for more productive investments. Currently Germany has an artificially undervalued exchange rate and is thus able to sell more to other EU countries, so denying other countries within the Eurozone the ability to grow and use funds to invest in more productive assets and improving competitiveness. A booming European economy can only help UK exports. A booming European economy is less likely to see mass immigration, as many immigrants move for economic reasons – not because of the colder northern European weather!

Britain’s traditional role has been in restoring self-government in European countries, after it has been taken away by other European countries. By having referendum processes in place, the root causes are being addressed – so reducing future possible problems.

The side effects of the EU are addressed, i.e. Eastern European countries losing huge amounts of skilled and motivated workers, who they have educated. Also the EU is about centralising power and we can see that also leads to centralising of wealth in many countries, at the expense of the low income people.

In summary, there is an opportunity to turn the EU request for funds into an opportunity to restore self-government in all European countries. If Germany, France and EU want UK money, then the UK can choose the terms, including restoring liberty and prosperity in Europe. Or no money.

A new poll about attitudes to the EU in Holland, undertaken for the Bruges Group, by Maurice de Hond shortly before the country’s General Election, shows the Dutch prefer alternatives to the EU rather than EU membership. Support for Nexit (i.e., the total of EFTA and FTA supporters) stood at 56% as opposed to 44% EU supporting continued EU membership. This compares to an IPSOS poll last year showing 64% preferred to remain in the EU. With the Netherlands going to the polls on 15th March, this poll could help pro-sovereignty parties. The poll gave respondents two choices for leaving the EU, the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) option and the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) option, which also included controlling immigration. The results show the Dutch are open to a working alternative, such as EFTA.

The national media on the continent is even more censored than the UK media, so the EFTA option may well be the easiest route to self-government and restoring democracy.

If the Dutch were to have a successful Nexit referendum, it would help our own Brexit negotiations if there was another country looking for a similar simple free trade agreement, with full immigration control. There is also the option of the other EFTA countries looking to renegotiate their terms and joining the UK and other European countries looking for self-government.

Interestingly, a similar poll for the UK, commissioned before last year’s referendum for the Bruges Group and undertaken by Opinium, showed 61% would support an EFTA+FTA option.

In summary, this poll shows that there is a real possibility the Netherlands may hold a Nexit referendum, with good chances of winning if the EFTA option is selected along with, maybe, a more phased approach to immigration control – e.g. new Eastern Europeans having a 1 year working working visa, with a points system for staying longer. Since European relations have been in flux for hundreds of years, new ideas for trade agreements that benefit the majority of people, including the EFTA option, are showing in this poll.

There are a number of options for EFTA membership:
– Full membership
– Associate membership

There are also a number of ways EFTA countries can trade with the EU
– EFTA/Single Market (Norway, Iceland)
– EFTA/Single Market, with immigration control (Liechtenstein)
– EFTA/bilateral (Switzerland)
– EFTA/FTA (Free Trade Agreement) (e.g. South Korea)
– EFTA/WTO rules (World Trade Organisation) (similar to China, which exports €300bn to the EU a year)

For regular updates about EFTA and the UK and Europe see here
For EFTA seminar powerpoints see here.
For a list of EFTA worldwide free trade agreements, see here

Hugo van Randwyck has been suggesting the EFTA option as a stepping stone for full self-government, starting with a transition to EFTA/Single Market, and using the articles 112 and 113 for phasing restoring self-government from the Single Market, e.g. immigration control . With the a simple FTA as the aim. In addition, looking at the option of northern Europe becoming an EFTA zone, with new members, the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria ,Ireland, joining Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. He has written for the Bruges Group and also CIB.

A fast track two-step Brexit, starting with EFTA Single Market + Opt Outs and then negotiation a Free Trade Agreement could accelerate the UK economy and living standards within 12 months. The European Free Trade Association (www.efta.int) , including Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein enjoy standards of living almost 40% higher than the UK, and also have an economic arrangement with the EU. The Single Market countries have an opportunity to use article 112 and 113 to control immigration, for example:

New Eastern European immigrants only get a 1 year working visa, no children, and a points skills system for staying longer ( so reducing downward pressure on wages)

Any other Single Market country, has free movement, unless their unemployment rate is 7% or more, in which case, new immigrants only get a 1 year working visa, no children, and a points skills system for staying longer ( so reducing downward pressure on wages)

Anyone with a non-UK passport wishing to buy a residential property needs to have lived in the UK for over 5 years ( so reducing rent and house price rises)

Increasing prosperity for the many by:

Ensuring wages rise faster than rents and house prices, so increasing disposable income and spending in the economy

This could be implemented now.

Q: What are other hidden benefits from upgrading to democracy, from our current EU membership?

A: The hidden costs of EU membership can be reduced and realized with self-government, including:

Business – better business cash-flow, since with economies controlled by large cartels, who can pay suppliers late and cash flow problems, then with easier entry into markets, smaller companies can also gain profits in the supply chain, enabling more investment and more even spread of pay, so reducing government benefit spending and so lower taxes

– The EU poor role model will be eliminated, of endless meetings, duplication (e.g. another Parliament in Strasbourg), poor communication, interfering without expertise (e.g. landlocked countries having influence in fishing industry countries), long decision making time, only top down ideas instead of listening to ideas at all levels, wasting public money on big projects that cost more than benefit, groupthink with censorship of other ideas and other problems

– decentralizing of power, could help to also have less large cartel companies – maybe demergers – and more smaller/medium size companies, so helping innovation and productivity increases, and so pay

– incomes rising faster than rents and house prices – so more disposable income, including lowest paid people, instead of current policy of rents and house prices rising faster than pay

Helping low income countries – low income countries could benefit as EU the is protectionist, for example only allowing raw coffee beans into the EU from Africa, to protect EU coffee roasters, so preventing African countries moving up the value chain by adding value and raising standards of living

– easier ability for Eastern European countries economies to grow as controlling new immigration will help keep skills in their countries, including management skills, engineering, legal, building, scientists, health, entrepreneurs, businesspeople

– shift world centre of gravity to democracy and people’s vote makes a difference, in making, amending and repealing any laws

– less interference and distortion in elections in countries, since with less aid money, those politicians in power can get credit at elections for money that came from outside, so deluding people into thinking policies are working, so less aid can help with better policies and less corruption

– better human rights, since respecting boundaries leads to better human rights, for example after the end of communism, people found that those countries that did not respect private property rights (Communism) had a loss of life in the 10 millions, while those that did respect private property rights (military dictatorships) had a loss of life in the 10,000s – all terrible losses – a significant difference

Better government – less corruption in government, with lack of accountability with some EU spending, thus being a poor role model in countries, where public prefer honest government, and no corruption

– better value for taxpayers money, with more competition, as the EU public procurement directive results in lots of new paperwork that small companies cannot afford, so don’t bid anymore

– better global regulations, as individual countries can lobby for regulations which make sense for the UK economic sectors

– higher morale in public sector organisations with regulations that suit the service being provided and less people are promoted with political connections –like the EU system – and more with merit

-less government debt and lower taxes, as less money is used for big projects that are wasteful experiments

– public can look up to their leaders, instead of now, where people look down on leaders – as the EU Parliament is more important than national Parliaments, so restoring self-government could alos help with better people going into politics

– simpler regulations, since the regulations made are only relevant to each country, and not a one-size-fits-all

– maybe help with children’s attention in schools, as countries have noticed a fall in education standards and respect for teachers and adults, since joining the EU. EFTA countries haven’t had many such problems

– less vote buying by politicians, since the EU has signs saying ‘funded by the EU’ when in fact, the money either comes from the country itself or from another country, who does not currently get recognition for aid

– new ideas looked at, since the ‘one party state’ thinking is gone and the ‘EU mind guards’ are gone, so simple questions like ‘what did we change?, what did we used to do?, what do other countries do?, what off-the-shelf alternatives are there? How are we evaluating the positives and negatives of any changes? Who benefits from the previous changes, who loses?’ can be asked.

– with the top-down thinking from the EU gone, people could feel free to suggest ideas again to managers and team members – instead of thinking it would be a waste of time – so helping improve service, quality, productivity and morale

– better chance of politicians listening to people’s opinions including the majority opinion, since the EU role model is poor with, for example, the UK only having 10% of seats, so 90% have other interests – so with self-government, 100% of politicians make the laws, and avoid special interest groups/cartels overruling majority opinions

– ability to have direct democracy, petition/referendum, since the results cannot be overruled by the EU

– each country is a unique ecosystem, with unique history, culture written and unwritten rules, evolving in its own way

As we can see from government actions, that spending on ‘white elephants’ to give contracts to cartels is still happening even after

In short, liberty is something that cartels of power, economic size and wealth do not easily release, so taking the initiative with promoting an alternative, EFTA, and a step-by-step approach to local MPs and media, can help the Brexit process speed up and realise benefits soon for all income groups, and the people who voted Brexit.

Some thoughts on how to upgrade from current EU membership to a Self-Governing Democracy with option of EFTA/Single Market + Opt Outs

There could be an easy and fast track way of switching from EU membership to a win-win agreement with EU countries, perhaps using the EFTA + Opt Outs approach? This would keep our access ot the single market and could help business confidence and also ease the strain on public services.

There could be 3 tracks for the negotiations:

Carrying out the negotiations

Using article 112 and 113 of the Single Market (EEA + European Economic Area) agreement to take ‘unilateral measures’ while negotiations are ongoing.

And simplifying the regulations in the UK

Firstly, having an idea of what the win-win agreement looks like is essential. This could include membership of EFTA (European Free Trade Associationwww.efta.int) and keeping free access to the Single Market with goods, services and capital – with all the rest with UK control, including movement of people.

– So, arranging a meeting with EU countries and say that the is UK looking for a win-win economic agreement, not a lose-win political/economic agreement, in order of preference EFTA/Single Market + Opt Outs (Norway, Liechtenstein), or EFTA/Bi-lateral (Switzerland), then FTA (South Korea), then WTO (China). Indeed, the former is the only seamless route through the Brexit door

– Apply to EFTA countries for membership, using article 56, of EFTA Convention

– UK apply for membership of world organisations for speaking and voting, e.g. WTO

Secondly, using article 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement, for unilateral actions, for a win-win approach, i.e. that UK citizens could get in other countries, including standard of living, while carrying out negotiations with the EU.

This could be used in a number of areas, to get immediate benefits for the economy

All new Eastern European immigrants get only a 1 year working visa, no children, no access to benefits, and a points skills system for staying longer

All other new EU immigrants have free movement, unless their unemployment is 7% or more, then they only get a 1 year working visa, no children, no access to benefits, and a points system for staying longer. Things that may help reduce their unemployment rate, could include restoring their original currencies.

If the UK unemployment rate is 7% or more, then all new EU immigrants only get a 1 year working visa, no children, no access to benefits, points skills system for staying longer.

Any new immigrant with an EU passport, from any EU country, who was not born in an EU country to EU parents does not get any free movement or automatic working visa, and needs to apply, using a point system, no children, no access to benefits. I.e. people who have bought their passport sin other EU countries, do not get automatic entry to work and live in the UK.

Optional: anyone who has already arrived in the last 5 years from Eastern Europe, is not entitled to benefits, including access to council housing. Anyone who has arrived from other EU countries, with unemployment rate 7% or over, in the last 5 years, does is not entitled to benefits

Any EU citizen with a previous serious crime criminal record – crime against property, financial crime, crimes against the person across any age group – is deported. Any EU citizen convicted in the UK for a crime – property, financial or person – is deported and serves sentence in EU country of origin.

Anyone from an EU country wishing to buy a residential property, can only buy after living 5 years in the UK and paying tax – similar to Denmark.

Thirdly, simplifying regulations.

Setting up an online system for easily accessing, searching, sorting and finding regulations, their source and use, for all areas in the UK, including national, county and local government, so working groups can review all existing regulations and simplify. For example:

UK law

UK law number, relevant Ministry, topic

text of law, any paperwork used for implementation

who affects, numbers of people and businesses, cost/benefits, usage

EEA/Single Market law

EEA law number

UK law number, relevant Ministry, topic

text of law and listing of any UK additions, any paperwork used for implementation

who affects, numbers of people and businesses, cost/benefits, usage

EU law

EU law number

UK law number, relevant Ministry, topic

text of law and listing of any UK additions, any paperwork used for implementation

who affects, numbers of people and businesses, cost/benefits, usage

World laws

World body law number

UK law number, relevant Ministry, topic

text of law and listing of any UK additions, any paperwork used for implementation

who affects, numbers of people and businesses, cost/benefits, usage

Process: Select Committee, consulting all relevant parties, for ideas and any ‘quick wins’

-Ask for advice from expertise in existing EFTA countries, for simplifying

Ask for advice from expertise in other successful countries

Listing of all articles and regulations from current treaty that are to be run by Parliament, including:

Movement of people

Environment

Social chapter

European Convention of Human Rights

For setting up cross party groups, to look at:

What works for the UK

what has had unintended side affects

incorporating ‘net benefit’ articles and regulations, in whole or part into UK law

repealing ‘net cost’ articles and regulations

In addition, for fast track simplifying:

Ask industry groups – small, medium and large – for listing of regulations and laws that hinder job creation and productivity, including ’gold-plating’ that add costs that prevent small businesses competing with larger businesses

Include a listing of which regulations make it difficult for small businesses to tender for public sector contracts and also compete with larger companies in the wider economy, e.g. excessive paperwork

Ask union groups for listing, as above, and also areas where health and safety is an issue

Listing also from charities and public sector of regulations unnecessary, since they do not export to the EU

e. since only 9% of the economy is involved with EU trade, eliminating unnecessary regulations for the other 91% of the economy

Listing of adverse rulings from the European Convention of Human Rights, that reward criminals, overrule other laws passed by Parliament, lead to loss of public faith in the legal system, are no benefit and merely create jobs in the legal profession. Listing also good rulings from the ECHR. Then look to simplify the ECHR, to be aligned with values of UK legal system and evolution.

Use the 80/20 rule for prioritizing, i.e. which 20% of suggestions, would give 80% of the benefits listed

Use article 112 and 113 for implementing the above and evaluate ongoing. It is also possible to start with trails in certain parts of the country, if this makes sense, before going for a nationwide implementation of unnecessary regulations

This is an easier way to accelerate the benefits for implementing prosperity, keeping it transparent, for the public to have faith, and not have big cartels, special interest groups and vote buying politicians, decide the outcomes. So restoring government of the people, by the people, for the people, prosperity for the many and also making it easier for other countries in the EU, to see benefits of voting leaving the EU and upgrading to democracy.

We need to engage younger voters in the referendum on leaving the EU. One argument which may appeal is that taking the EFTA option would allow us to scrap student fees.

Firstly, for the benefit of those who are not aware of EFTA, is is the European Free Trade Association (See www.efta.int.) Norway is a member of EFTA and is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. The majority of its electorate do not want to join the EU.

EFTA countries have an economic agreement with the EU, allowing for free movement of goods, services, people and capital. However Liechtenstein has ‘special provisions’ for controlling immigration, far more powerful than the feeble “Emergency Brake” which David Cameron needs to ask permission to apply.

But what are the issues for younger people and students?

Lower income – poor job opportunities and downward pressure on wages from immigration

Middle income – high rents and house prices, making it difficult to save for a deposit, due to immigration demand on housing, also downward pressure on wages from immigration and also student loans to pay off.

In 2014, the UK paid a net £11 billion to the EU. Norway does not pay to be part of the Single Market, it diverts some of its foreign aid to the EU – something the UK could also do, and use the £11 billion savings for getting rid of student tuition fees and also outstanding student tuition fees.

At the end of 2014-15 there were 4.6m borrowers with outstanding student loans, with a total debt of £64.7 billion. So with £11 billion to spend in the UK, that would allow, all loans to be paid off in 7 years.

Maintenance loans could be worked out using the minimum wage for the weeks studying and not working. For example £7.20 per hour * 35 hours in a week = £252 per week

Perhaps the after tax amount could be calculated and also an expectation that students have some sort of part time job during studying time. I.e. working out the amount using 25 or 30 hours a week.

There are other ways to speed up the paying off of all outstanding student loans, by reviewing how easy it is for new immigrant to access benefits, for example needing to contribute for 5 years, or only receiving the amounts they would get in their own country.

Current benefits to EU immigrants include: Housing benefit, tax credits and unemployment benefit of £2.5 billion – a significant amount. With more immigration, this amount could increase even more. If other people in other EU countries avoid paying their taxes and vote for corrupt, irresponsible and incompetent politicians, there is no reason for the UK taxpayer to be held financially responsible.

Some studies have shown that every person unemployed costs the taxpayers around £10,000 in benefits and lost tax revenue. So if the UK had Norway’s and Switzerland’s average unemployment rate of around 4% instead of 5.1%, that would be around 1.36 million, instead of 1.7 million, an extra 340,000 paying tax, or another £3.4 bn. If the UK had 3% unemployment, this could add another £6.8bn.

All helping pay off outstanding student debt faster.

Free Student tuition and maintenance grants, calculation

250,000 students with £35,000 debt = approx £9 bn

Current outstanding student loans = £64.7 bn

Savings from leaving the EU and switching to a win-win EFTA Single Market + Opt Outs agreement

Current net EU contribution = £11bn a year

Cost of projects due to higher population HS2 = £42.6bn

Cost of projects due to higher population, Hinkley point nuclear power subsidy potential = £20bn

Since the foreign aid budget is set to increase from £11bn to £16bn by 2020, this extra money could be used for any aid projects in Eastern Europe.

Likely the fastest way to increase the paying off loans is by having a trade balance, and so an increase in tax revenues. Leaving the EU and joining EFTA is the easiest and fastest way. Increasing average income to Norway’s level would also help i.e. £ 36,000 compared to the UK of £24,000. Younger voters and undecideds voting to Leave the EU would be voicing their emancipation proclamation, freeing themselves from financial serfdom.

Since the UK also has a trade deficit with the EU, which means loss of jobs and loss of company sales, then a trade balance will help in increasing government revenues from more: income tax, corporation tax, VAT, council tax, fuel duty, business rates and other taxes. So allowing the student loans to be paid off, and restore free higher education, as before the UK switched to the EU, from the EEC. The reduction in regulations would also be like a tax cut for businesses, helping making it easier to grow their businesses. In addition the hidden cost affecting the public sector of the EU style of top down ideas, centralisation/mergers, poor communication, and low morale would also be lifted allowing better decisions, communication and higher morale.